My dad says, Robert Blake, and OJ are gonna be golf buddies now...

[goodboy]

Blake hit a hole-in-one...(no pun intended)

[Mojambo]

1. The Blood-Thirsty Murderers Club? n/t

[goodboy]

2. dad says, "the blake verdict proves we have the best legal system money

can buy/...

[Maat]

4. Yep, Mojambo. That's right.

n/t

[rocktop15]

3. Who cares about them?

They're guilty. They're Celebritites. Fuck them.

[KharmaTrain]

8. You Sat In On The Jury?

How do you know? Obviously 12 jurors don't feel the same way you do and I guess, you from your computer, know far more than they did.

Yep, let's run trial by media and to hell with presenting facts and allowing a person to put on their own defense. Even better, if they're famous or rich, we start with 6 of the jurors automatically voting against them and let them buy off the others. Sheesh.

This should be viewed as a rare victory for common people in a court system that ruthlessly destroying lives every day.

[rocktop15]

28. Media diversion

Would you care this much about a regular trial that does not get as much media attention? These celebrity trials are a diversion from the real, substantive news such as the Alaskan drilling bill that passed, the fact that we are in the second highest trade deficit ever, etc.

[KharmaTrain]

31. Apple & Oranges

Yes, it's a media diversion and the damage these corporate whores do to what's left to journalism and the judicial system is obscene.

Robert Blake has nothing to do with ANWAR or anything else, and the point is he was tried by a jury and was acquited based on the facts, but you and other trash him for his celebrity and "wealth" (if he has any left after this fiasco). Your dismissing this man's right to a fair trial and dismissing the verdict.

The media should be shut out of all trials. My hat's off to the judge in this case who kept a real tight lid on all involved, compared to the other circuses. I wish that judge in Santa Maria would shut down that media village and allow only one reporter a day with a simple notebook...that'd shut down a lot of this horseshit in a hurry.

[goodboy]

5. dad wonders if Beretta gun sales will skyrocket now...???

[Warpy]

6. Blake is a little different

There was a long line of people out there waiting to off his Mrs. She was great at using people and making enemies. Mrs OJ wasn't like that.

There was no forensic evidence implicating Blake, no powder residue on his hands or clothing. There was only circumstantial evidence that he really wanted to be out from under, no evidence that he actually did something about it. There was blood evidence with Simpson, but the cops got greedy and contaminated the evidence chain and lazy in not going after an accomplice that he had to have had in order to fit the timeline.

And yeah, they'll be golfing buddies.

[goodboy]

7. Hiring two stunt men to off his wife is pretty strong circumstantial

evidence...

[jrthin]

12. It's *strong evidence* if

you consider the words of delusional drugs addicts (one who claims he's "being followed by trees") reliable.

I'm always impressed and hopeful about our judicial system when a jury finds a defendant innocent. An innocent verdict suggest, to me, that the jury has thought about the evidence presented before them and not just bought the prosecutor's case. The jury has, in essence, challanged the government. I say bravo.

[zalinda]

17. Here's a quote from Reuters

"The prosecution's circumstantial case hinged largely on the testimony of two the retired stuntmen who admitted under oath they had been hooked for years on drugs.

One of them, Gary "Whiz Kid" McLarty, acknowledged he suffered from paranoia culminating in a nervous breakdown in which he believed police were tunneling under his home.

The other, Ronald "Duffy" Hambleton, testified that Blake had proposed various scenarios to "pop" or "whack" his wife, including pushing her off the Grand Canyon. Two former roommates testified that Hambleton was a former methamphetamine user who suffered from hallucinations that "tree people" were stalking him.

The jury foreman told reporters after the verdict that jurors had found the evidence against Blake "flimsy" and "based on unreliable people."

Another quote from MSNBC:

"Many of the pundits observing the Blake case felt after the verdict came down that, contrary to the assertion of Bonny Lee’s sister that he bought his way to freedom, he might have won it with a public defender in his corner rather than Gerald Schwartzbach. That’s how flimsy the case was. There were no fingerprints, no witnesses, no physical evidence at all save for the murder weapon, which was found in a dumpster and was not traced back to Blake, and some gun residue on Blake that could have come from his own weapon."


This man has suffered for 4 years and has spent 10 million so far, he's broke and it's not done yet. Bakley's sister is going to sue him in civil court. Many people will believe he did it, just because he was accused. I don't. I believe that people truly are innocent until it is proved that they are guilty.



zalinda

[killbotfactory]

33. Where's the justice?

If two delusional drug-addicted well-known lairs whose own family says you can't believe a word they say can't get someone convicted of murder in this country, what the hell can?!

[Cleita]

9. Probably they will have to because no one else will want to

play with them. Isn't this what happened to OJ? No one wanted to be seen with him.

[autorank]

10. "Please replace the divit in OJ's head."

Double killer walking free.
He should spend one month each
year in the homes of the 12
"morans" who let him go.
May they face their judgment
with fear and trepidation.

[oasis]

11. The "morans" were "detectives" Van Adder and Fuhrman who planted

evidence in order to to make their case a slam dunk.

[autorank]

13. Pass the pipe, I like what "oasis" is cooking!

The detectives were "morans." I mean seriously, how could Van Adder drive around with OJ blood evidence in his trunk for two days. LAPD was, at that time, challenged to say the least. Arrogant and sloppy. Now, does that mean every one charged back then was innocent? Hardly.

DNA -- the stuff of our very existence -- the DNA evidence proved OJ guilty. His blood was there. You need the most cynical and anti-intellectual arguments to defeat this conclusive proof.

He did it, period. Unless of course you think they cooked up some special OJ DNA and put it all over the crime scene (which was clearly not possible based on the testing).

But, hey, that's just my opinion based on the very best science for identifying human tissue and fluids ever developed. What do the scientists know? Watson & Crick must have conspired with LAPD back in 1959 to pre-cognitively frame OJ. :evilgrin:

[oasis]

15. The jury was not familiar with the science of DNA. Attorney Barry Scheck

was O.J.'s DNA expert who muddied the waters enough for them to discount that evidence.

Cops tampering with evidence is something easily understood. Tainted evidence led to their reasonable doubt verdict.

[autorank]

19. HAHAHA (respectfully submitted)

Please, the 'tainted evidence' was a bogus claim. DNA is DNA. It was at the scene. Now since we both have less respect for LAPD than we do for Tom DeLay, let me up the ante. The prosecution was bad beyond words. The lead prosecutor had angina or some such ailment and backed out leaving the door open for the incompetent Marcia Clark. They did a mock jury with her prior to the trial and the jury focus group pretty much loathed her. Did that stop the LA DA's office, oh no. So the scientific case was not argued well but it was presented. The jurors let their passions and revulsion at LAPD over come the need for justice. The guy hacked off the heads of two people. His blood was there, yet he walked. Pathetic outcome. My daughter and I (she was 12 at the time) could have argued the case better (I've never won an argument with her and she's 21 now!).

And, oh, Judge Ito, the personification of Narcissism. Good Lard, the man was a fool. Remember the flowers he spread around the court room. The meandering pace of the trial.

This type of nonsense would not have happened if Vincent Bugliosi had tried the case. I've always wondered why the DA's office didn't hire him on for this.

I understand how the jury came to it's conclusion but I am convinced by the science that OJ did it, as well as the other evidence. Letting a guy like that walk around is an affront to the judicial system.

If this had been tried in NYC, any borough, OJ would have lost. I suspect that the outcome would have been the same in a number of other cities. LA DA and LAPD blew it by not having a slam dunk case presented when they had the evidence. Nevertheless, the jury had days of DNA explanation and the stupid judge had instructions which should have been: No matter how crooked the LAPD is, the blood evidence contains OJ's DNA. If you disregard all of modern science, you may acquit. Other wise, do your jobs."

[oasis]

22. Questions arose on how blood evidence was handled. The jury's "job"

was to acquit unless the evidence against OJ was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reasonble doubt. While the judge's instructions to the jury mentioned nothing about DNA or "modern science" I suspect that it did have a reference or two concerning "reasonable doubt".

So sue the "Founding Fathers".

[autorank]

25. I love the founding fathers, I live in their state!

Their influence is so profound that when a right wing Republican tried to amend the Virginia Consitution by reinterpreting Jefferson and Mason to say that there was no separation of church and state, even the Republican's who control our legislature tossed it out. Their ideas and words have enduring power.

You hight it right on the head...the judge was a meandering clown who seemed to me, anyway, taken up by his new found celebrity. The instructions should have made it clear that DNA evidence was to be used as scientific proof period, whithout a doubt. He didn't do that. So what. The guy is guilty (or are you saying he was innocent and should have walked).

[oasis]

27. Juries found Lizzie Borden, OJ, and Blake to be "not guilty".

"The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on.
And all your piety and wit can't summons it back to cancel half a line,
Nor all your tears wash out a word of it."

[autorank]

30. Excellent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, now let's meet at the coffee house and talk about the Civil Trial verdict! Regards!!! :hi:

[Tomee450]

Oh please

Mistakenly posted to OP Meant for autorank #10

There were many holes in the Simpson case. Blood planted on the back gate, blood appearing in the car that wasn't seen originally, blood in his house not seen by the photographer, detectives carrying OJ's blood around when the normal procedure was to check it in immediately, a racist cop being the first to find the glove, a glove that did not fit, crime scene contamination. The lists goes on an on. Furthermore, since the Simpson trial, the LA police department has been discovered to have rouge cops who not only planted drugs and guns, but who even shot innocent defendants and testified against them in court resulting in jail sentences. Also, very recently there was a program on television which exposed how lax DNA labs were and showed how evidence often became contaminated. I am not going to replay the Simpson case but will say that there was reasonable doubt raised and since that was the case, the jurors did what they were supposed to do, vote not guilty. You may not like the decision but it's outrageous to call the jurors names simply because you did not like their decision.

[autorank]

21. I wanna party with you guys!

The "contamination" or mixing of blood points to OJ's guilt. Did they just find some other blood to throw in there. Contamination is not an issue when you can get a DNA sample of a person. It shows the integrity of the evidence since the DNA shows up despite the cotamination. DNA labs that can produce DNA samples are all it takes. The lab in this case produced samples. The odds ratio for his blood was 4.0 billion to one. As far as OJ's blood not being there, not so. It was identified in multiple places by multiple people.

Please, the guy did it, he's guilty. LAPD sucked as did the DA's office. Nevertheless, the judge was a "moran" and the jury punished the victims, the citizens of LA County, and the survivors in order to make a point to LAPD. Bad mojo, bad karma, good blood evidence.

Next you guys will argue that Dreyfuss was guilty!

:hi: Meet you at the club! Well debate this after refreshments. :hi:

[Tomee450]

14. And did you feel the

same way about the jury that acquitted Robert Durst of Texas, a man who admitted to murdering and dismembering his neighbor? He was another wealthy man who was able to mount a defense and win acquittal. Did you call those jurors morons? Durst is also suspected of murdering his wife and her friend. And what about those jurors in the Rodney King case who looked at a tape of King being beaten many times yet said he was still in charge and then voted to acquit the perpetrators. It seems only black jurors are attacked for their verdicts. Why is that?

[autorank]

23. Getting personal are we. This is the only case being discussed.

I'm happy to say the Durst jurors were uber "morans" and the King jurors were obviously smoking crack. I don't care what Rodney King was doing, that tape was conclusive evidence that the officers were guilty. I know why they moved it to Ojai, ex-urban LAPD housing hide-away. The results of that verdict were calamitous for everyone. The judge who moved the trial out of LA should have been impeached. There should have been an investigation of that process. There also should have been one of moving the trial from Brentwood, where OJ did his deed, to downtown. Could it be the DA was doing a little politicking in that case too.

Now for the implied slander "t seems only black jurors are attacked for their verdicts. Why is that?" in reference to my message. This is pretty nasty and it's also a cheap shot. We're not talking about stupid juries here, it's about OJ and Blake (whom I know nothing about). It it was about stupid juries, as you can see, I'm most appalled by the King process and verdict in the initial trial. Durst and OJ are a dead heat.

I'd like you to apologize for implying that I was being racist.

Thanks

[me b zola]

16. To me the difference is...

OJ is an abuser, Blake was abused.

[Tomee450]

18. Just because

someone is an abuser does not mean he has to be a murderer. Just because someone has been abused does not mean he cannot be a murderer and if he does murder his abuse should not be an excuse to acquit. People are willing to give Blake a pass even though he is probably the murderer of wife and left his child without her mother. No such luck for OJ since he is black and his alleged victims were white. I believe Blake is guilty but can accept the verdict since the jury has spoken. Many people refused to do that with the Simpson case.

[me b zola]

24. Have you ever been abused?

Have you ever quietly said a rosery because you did not think that you would live beyond a few minutes longer?? Those who have had their life held in limbo by a frickin abuser have just cause for not giving a flying fuck about OJ.

[autorank]

26. me b zola SPEAKS TRUTH TO POWER!

:yourock: m be zola, your namesake would be proud!

[me b zola]

32. Ah shucks, Autorank

But you can call me zola. Sometimes I'm afraid of the little things that I can't contain. What a long, strange, trip its been.

Anyway, thanks.:hug:

[clem_c_rock]

20. THANKS FOR WASTING OUR F***ing TIME

While you're at it can u post some more shit here on Scott Peterson? How about something on the Micheal Jackson trial, or even better yet, how about something on steroid use in baseball?

Thanks

[ghostsofgiants]

29. I just hope this means we'll get a decent DVD verion of Lost Highway soon

[killbotfactory]

34. ditto

Where the hell is it?! I've been waiting forever!